there were numerous other books and scriptures excluded from the official bible, and sure many of them were potentially bogus, though many were found to be as authentic as those books that made it into the bible, but were not convinient, for whatever reason. (often the story wouldnt flow as smoothly with the added books) it was a pick and choose thing when the bible was cannonized. so what im asking is why do you have so much faith in the opinions of other men? why so much faith in the cannonized texts and not others? what about the book of enoch? the testament of solomon? the acts of peter? the gosple of james? ect. ect. ect. there are so many. i find it interesting that you cant even read and fully understand the bible without having read the book of enoch. there are so many verses in the bible that havent enough background information to understand without the book of enoch...yet the book of enoch is apocriphal... iv been told many times that the bible is teh undisputed word of god, yet the books were written by men, many with their own agendas in mind, and they were sorted and cannonized by men, who obviously had their own agendas in mind, these books were re-written and "translated" by men with their own agendas in mind....how can you say these texts are still authentic and unaltered after all this time? what makes the king james version more authentic than the ethiopian version?